Secretary of Defense Pete Hegses' decision to fire the best lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force, is to make the military more aggressive on the battlefield and to potentially hampered forces that are not hampered by the laws of armed conflict He represents the opening salvo in his push to remake.
During his meeting with the Pentagon's Hegses with the army in Europe last week, he repeatedly spoke about the need to restore the “warrior spirit” to the army he claims. The past 20 years.
His decision to replace the military judge's defender general (typically a three-star military officer) provides a sense of how he defines the spirit he has vowed to plant. Masu.
The firing came as part of a broader push by Hegses and President Trump. He was the first woman to lead the Navy late on Friday, with the country's top officer, General Charles Q. Brown, and the Air Force staff.
In comparison, the defender general of the three fired judges, also known as “Jugs,” is less noticeable. In the Pentagon and on the battlefields around the world, military lawyers are not decision makers. Their job is to provide independent legal advice to senior military officers to ensure that they do not violate US laws or laws of armed conflict.
A senior Pentagon official said none of the three fired military lawyers have been contacted since Hegses took office. All three were also named in the rear of Lieutenant General Joseph B. Berger III, Vice General Christopher C. French and Leah M. Reynolds, even in the Pentagon statements that announced their firing from military service for decades. Not there.
High-ranking officials with knowledge of firing added that they were aware that military lawyers had “uplifted Zero's head” and that brass at the top of the Army, Navy and Air Force were not aware. Ta.
The termination of unknown cause prompted widespread concern. “At a point that's even colder than firing four stars,” Georgetown Law Professor Rosa Brooks wrote X: You might try to slow you down. ”
The firing does not appear to be related to a single conflict, but it does tie into Hegses' views on why the US forces struggled to achieve significant victories in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can see it. Works under his leadership.
In his book, “The War on Warriors,” published last year, Hegses blames military lawyers for imposing excessively restrictive rules of engagement on frontline forces, and the enemy repeatedly wins the battlefield. They claim they have allowed them to win.
Hegseth sends lawyers in his book with “Jagoffs.” This period led Sen. Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, and West Point graduates, to ask Mr. Hegses at the hearing to see if he could effectively lead the army after a light par. I did.
Mr. Hegzes' explanation of this period in his book and his Senate testimony contradicts how rules of battlefield engagement were set during the war. Senior Iraq and Afghan officials have come to believe that civilian deaths, such as Gen. David H. Petraeus, have opposed the local population to the US military and feed the enemy ranks.
Ultimately, the rules belonged to the leaders of the battlefield, not to the military lawyers. The axioms – “Advised by lawyers and decided by the commander” – are central to the education of all military lawyers, said current and former JAG officers.
Hegses' views on war laws could also be at odds with some of the senior military generals currently serving under him.
In his book, he repeatedly expresses his dissatisfaction with international law set after World War II and controls armed conflicts. “What if the enemy doesn't respect Geneva's customs?” he writes. “We have never got an answer. Just more wars. More casualties. And there are no victory.”
For many senior commanders, the “warrior spirit” is not just about killing enemies or winning wars. It also includes concepts such as discipline, honor, and respect for the unified code of military justice.
“The battles can become out of control, lethality intensifies, and combat can quickly turn into murder as soon as passion rages,” said Lt. Gen. David Barno, who commanded the US forces in Afghanistan.
The fighting law is designed to protect not only the military but civilians from moral injuries. Soldiers need to think about the enemies and civilians they killed “for the rest of their lives.”
In a confirmed testimony from Mr Hegses' Senate, lawmakers tried to pin him what he meant when he mentioned “the spirit of a warrior.” they.
His answers were often evasive. “America's number one national security policy is not going to hand over that privilege to international organisations that make decisions about how our men and women make decisions on the battlefield,” replied Hegses.
During his first term as president, Heggs appealed to Trump to issue amnesty for US troops accused or convicted of war crimes or murder for his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. In October 2019, Trump called Hegses to tell him he was forgiven two soldiers and a naval seal he had defended on Fox TV shows for months.
The president concluded the conversation with a tribute that Hegses wrote, “I will never forget and I may wear a gravestone.”
The president called him a warrior and used the insistence to emphasize.
One of the soldiers who were pardoned was the first Clint Lorance. The soldier then radioed a false report claiming the body had been removed and the weapon could not be searched.
The Army convicted EU during Lorance on second-degree murder and other charges and sentenced him to 19 years in prison. For Hegses, Li during the pardon of Lorance represented justice. The US military engaged in combat should be the “most ruthless, most uncompromising, most overwhelming and deadly” forces on the battlefield, Hegses wrote last year.
“Our military makes mistakes,” he continued. “And when they do that, they should get the overwhelming benefits of doubt.”
According to Pentagon officials, senior Army lawyers were opposed to the decision to forgive Bard during Lorance. Among those most angry at the president's pardon were the troops who had made the difficult decision to serve under him, accusing him of war crimes and testify at trial.
“The Army thought it was this altruistic,” Lucas Gray, who served under the EU throughout Lorance in Afghanistan, told the Washington Post. “I thought it was perfect and honorable. It hurts me to tell you how stupid and naive I am.”
“Lorance's stuff broke my faith,” he said.
